Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 FSUPP 706 - Mantz v. Kersting

Mantz v. Kersting’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
April 1973
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1973

1 state decisions

4019391940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Company · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · McClain v. Ortmayer · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Seymour v. Osborne

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A manual operation is not the equivalent of a mechanical means for performing it or of automatic action. As said in Brown v. Davis, 1885, 116 U.S. 237, 249 , 6 S.Ct. 379, 386 , 29 L.Ed. 659 : ‘But the lever, or its equivalent, as a mechanical instrument, is made an essential element in claim 2; and dispensing with the lever, and using instead the human hand, is not the use of an equivalent, although in the plaintiffs’ machine the hand is applied to work the lever.* * *' * * * * * * . “ -x- . * * Here, in the installation of the accused device, the tension adjustment is achieved by a machine shop or factory operation prior to the placing of the spring onto the drum, i. e. before assembly. Thereafter, no adjustment can be made. In the patented device, the adjustment of tension is achieved, after the device is assembled, by means of the rotatable axle and the disc. We thus have, in the patented device, a mechanical means for securing proper tension. In the accused device, we have no such means. Instead, we have a manual handling before assembly. The one is not the equivalent of the other. * * *” (Emphasis in opinion.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.